Well, most legends have some basis in fact... they are simply embellished until they reach the unbelievable... but that's not my point.

You're all about research into different subjects, but it's disingenuous when somebody writes half a dozen articles, and sets up a couple of websites and then cites them as proof of their article. I don't have any problem with your reference disputing Chang San Feng's authorship of Tai Chi... it's an argument that's been going on for years, but I have a problem with him creating "circular proofs" in which he's the author.

That would be like you writing half a dozen articles on Goju kata, and then proving your version of the bunkai using those articles as "proof"... You hammer me all the time about "independent" tests, and "unbiased" assessments, and that article had the author's finger in the pie everywhere I looked.

Sure, point of view has a lot to do with what you believe, but your google-fu skills are slipping if you miss something that obvious.

_________________________
What man is a man that does not make the world a better place?... from "Kingdom of Heaven"

Run, don't walk to Barnes & Noble and buy Journal of Asian Martial Arts, Volume 16, Number 4--read the article by Douglas Wile called "Taijiquan and Daoism from religion to martial art and martial art to religion". It will change your entire perspective of the history of Tai Chi Chuan. I won't reprint any of it, but one blogger discusses it here: http://northstarmartialarts.com/blog1/category/taijiquan/

Basically, the standard history of Tai Chi Chuan, Taoism, Chang San Feng, etc, is extremely unreliable. Any reference to Tai Chi history or Chang San Feng as a supporting argument for this thread actually demonstrates less credibility.

If you really think your private texts and notes are historically accurate, you may consider writing a response to Mr. Wile's article. I'm sure he would be interested in your findings.

James,my approach to things like this is sort of like "who invented the shomen strike?" Hell... who cares... it is what it is, and the definition of who exactly invented the movement isn't really important. OSensei is credited with "inventing Aikido", but he assembled the knowledge of a lot of people, added his own twists and turns, and viola... Aikido was born. It isn't Daito Ryu... it isn't swordfighting... but it has all those elements in it.

As long as I've been rubbing elbows with Tai Chi, Chang San Feng has been credited with it's "invention", as such. I'm sure it's just like karate, where the "Joe Blow" style was once "Knarley Ned's student's system that was adapted by Chang and modified from the information he learned from Feng Tao Yi's book on hitting points. None of this stuff is stagnant. Every teacher has nuances and differences even from their own teachers.

What I take offense at, is that somehow there has to be a book written about something with footnotes before something is "true". I've got notes written from martial arts camps, seminars, and private teachings that have never been published... and it's all good information. Should I consider it all "untrue" just because it's not published? I don't think so...

I don't really care if the inventer of Tai Chi was Bozo the Clown, as long as the information I have works. From everything I've seen, it does... History is always written by "the winners" anyway, so it's colored to make the "winner" look good...

What was being challenged in this latest move off topic, was the veracity of the statement that DM was not a self-defense art, but the art of assisination. The logic and historical data seems to back it up, but since the Chinese didn't make footnotes back then, I'm sure there's a text somewhere by some remote PhD that has a different opinion.BFD...

_________________________
What man is a man that does not make the world a better place?... from "Kingdom of Heaven"